Writing for symphony orchestra is an amazing experience. As you turn a piano sketch or melodic fragment into a symphonic work, it blossoms before you like the plumage of a peacock or a valley appearing over the horizon. Of course, it is also one of the most difficult and frustrating tasks because of the sheer number of voices and sounds that need to be balanced. I’ve decided to take a moment here to discuss my encounters with the symphonic form and how my approach and ideas have changed over time.
The beginnings
Symphony No. 6 in C major – 1998
This was my first serious attempt at writing for an orchestra, and you can tell because of its rather blocky and stagnant presentation. The only notable part of this movement is the very opening, in which I created a simple texture which is reminiscent of the tolling of bells, which gives way to a unison melody that opens up until full harmony.
Symphony No. 10 in D major – 1998
The first movement of this string symphony was an important milestone. Besides being the first symphonic movement that I completed, it was also the first to employ the sonata form structure. However, I still had a very primitive idea of the development, which I handled by basically using the copy & paste and transpose functions. It creates an unintended comical effect, and I still refer to this technique as the “copy & paste” sonata form. I began exploring ways to hand off melodic lines (in a juvenile way – I jokingly call this movement a constant run of 16th notes handed off between the voices). Moreover, I began to experiment with adding and dropping voices to create textural variation.
Listen to the brand new Garritan Orchestra MP3 made especially for this post!
Symphony No. 13 in a minor – 1998
The primary subject of this symphony was very experimental for me at the time. Consisting of only straight half-notes in every single instrument, it became my task to create unexpected harmonic changes in order to maintain interest. While still triadic in nature, I began to move away from straight I-IV-V harmonies which were exclusively used in every previous attempt.
Moving to the full orchestra
Symphony No. 17 in e minor – 2002
Still staying firmly within the realm of 4/4 time, 4-bar phrase, this 45-second fragment of a movement still managed to serve as good practice for writing for full orchestra. I still had serious misconceptions about the instruments (for instance using an A clarinet and C horn), but I had already begun to group and pair instruments for certain effects, such as the piccolo-violin-harp combination or full-brass + percussion combination.
Another important idea that I discovered here was the introduction. Prior to this symphony, the theme always came “head on” – the very first note was the main theme. Here, the introduction is only two measures long, but the idea of “easing into” the theme has become very important in every subsequent symphony except No. 22.
I just today rediscovered this piece, having forgotten about it for several years. Never made into a MIDI, it sat unnoticed in the shadow of Symphony No. 18. To commemorate the first substantial full-orchestra writing I did, I have produced a Garritan Orchestra version of this opening.
Symphony No. 18 in a minor – 2002
This one-movement symphony was a major turning point for me. Beginning with an extended, harmonically ambiguous introduction, I began to explore the possibilities of chromaticism and atmosphere, key aspects of the symphonic experience. The main binding motif is in the tympani, E-B-E, B-E-B, while many themes arrive in succession.
The primary subject alternates between bombastic 2-bar a minor/D major arpeggios and thin, comical 2 1/2-bar harmonically ambiguous ditties. The concept was perplexing or hilarious, depending on the listener. I personally intended it as a joke, but some people didn’t get it. The entire symphony was based on abrupt changes in color, dynamic, and tonality, up until the very end whent he introduction reappears but then ascends with one of the best harp lines (imo) that I have ever written. It is simplistic but for the first time really strongly captured an emotion in a symphonic work.
There were also new contrapuntal ideas that I introduced which helped to break away from very square meters. One of my favorite passages is where the clarinet and bassoon trade off an Eb-C-B motif at one speed while the flutes and violins do similarly, but at half the speed, leading to a temporal mismatch.
Symphony No. 22 in d minor – 2004
I wrote this piece with my youth orchestra in mind, hence the flute + strings orchestration. While harmonically much more conservative than 18 which had preceded it by at least two years, this work marked the first completed symphony, consisting of four traditional movements: sonata form, slow movement, scherzo, and rondo. It was also important because it set into focus melodic contours and development. In the second movement, I created melodic arcs which spanned many sub-phrases which meld into one another. And in the first movement, the majority of the space is occupied by the development which takes the themes through many transformations, of which my favorite is the Eb major lyrical treatment of the previously march-like secondary theme.
There are just a few quirky moments in this symphony, one of which is that the boom-cha of the second theme’s accompaniment switches beats (i.e. 1 and 3 instead of 2 and 4) between the exposition and the recapitulation, thus emphasizing opposite melodic tones.
Symphony No. 23 in a minor – 2004
This “movement” consists only of two isolated but related fragments of ideas which are based on tremolo strings. The only notable aspect was the use of 7ths and 9ths as standard parts of chords, rather than just triads.
Symphony No. 24 in d minor – 2006
Firmly rooted in romantic-era harmony, this movement was easy to write in many ways. However, it has probably also been the most successful symphonic attempt to date, because the evolution of the melody and texture proceeds at a very regulated pace and the 6/8 meter backed up by the tambourine keeps a dance-like atmosphere going. My favorite part is the secondary theme, which is incomplete but based on a haunting, piercing oboe melody which drifts over a distant, fluid chord progression.
The current days
Symphony No. 25 in f#- 2009
The spiritual successor of Symphony No. 18, my current endeavor again utilizes a tympani motif, this time F#’-C#-F# (F#’ is one octave up). While atonal, it does have a harmonic binding based on certain pedal notes. The work as a whole is very F#-centric but in general avoids suggestion of the classical triads, instead using ornamented open fifths as the basis of the harmonic structure.
There is a lot of space between successive iterations of the opening motif, carried by the flute. Each time, the motif becomes more elaborate and more contextualized until the floodgates burst open.
